Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Medical malpractice cases in New York are often won or lost on the strength of expert testimony. A recent New York ruling in which the court affirmed the dismissal of a malpractice and lack of informed consent case after the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants’ expert-supported summary judgment motion, highlights the uphill battle plaintiffs face when they cannot meaningfully rebut defense expert evidence with their own. If you suffered harm due to surgical complications or believe you were not fully informed about the risks of a procedure, it is smart to talk to a knowledgeable Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your options.
Case Overview
Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent spinal surgery in October 2013. The procedure involved an extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), performed by Dr. Mitchell Levine, a neurosurgeon, and a thoracotomy, performed by Dr. Laurence Spier, a thoracic surgeon. Both doctors were affiliated with North Shore University Hospital and Northwell Health. The plaintiff later alleged that the surgeries were negligently performed and initiated a lawsuit asserting lack of informed consent and medical malpractice claims.
It is alleged that the defendants moved for summary judgment, presenting affirmations from board-certified experts in neurosurgery and thoracic surgery. These experts attested that the procedures were conducted within the bounds of accepted medical practice and that the plaintiff’s complications did not result from any deviation from standard care. They further asserted that the plaintiff was adequately informed of the risks and alternatives prior to surgery.
Avoiding Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Cases
The court reiterated the legal standards governing medical malpractice claims: a plaintiff must show a deviation from the standard of care and that the deviation proximately caused the injury. A defendant seeking summary judgment must demonstrate, with expert opinion and reference to the record, that there was no departure from the standard or that any departure did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
In this case, the defendants met that burden. Their expert affirmations provided detailed, medically supported explanations showing compliance with accepted practices. This shifted the burden to the plaintiff to submit competent, non-speculative expert evidence, creating a factual dispute.
However, the court found that the plaintiff’s expert affidavit was “conclusory and speculative,” lacking the specificity needed to challenge the defendants’ medical rationale. The plaintiff’s neurosurgical expert failed to establish that the XLIF procedure was outside the standard of care or that any surgical error caused the plaintiff’s harm. As a result, the claim for medical malpractice was dismissed.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim of lack of informed consent. It noted that the plaintiff had signed a detailed consent form and had testified to discussions about the surgery’s risks. Moreover, the plaintiff’s affidavit contradicted her earlier deposition testimony, which further undermined her credibility. The court held that she failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this claim as well.
Talk to a Dedicated Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical malpractice claims can be challenging to pursue, particularly when expert testimony is central to establishing both negligence and causation. If you were harmed by inadequate medical care or surgical treatment, the experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you assess your legal options. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
